Russia key to ending Syrian violence: Hanna

Updated
May 30, 2012 16:35:00

In Syria a UN team investigating the slaughter at Houla has found that, despite its denials, the Syrian government should be held largely responsible for deaths of more than 100 men, women and children, mostly in execution style killings. So far, intensification of diplomatic pressure, including the expulsion of Syrian diplomats by Australia and several other governments, has not stopped the violence, with monitoring groups saying scores more people were killed in clashes between regime troops and rebels overnight. Eleanor Hall speaks to Syrian specialist, Dr Michael Wahid Hanna, from The Century Foundation, says Russia hold the key to ending the violence.

ELEANOR HALL: Let's go now to Syria where a UN (United Nations) team investigating the slaughter at Houla has found that, despite its denials, the Syrian government should be held largely responsible for deaths of more than a hundred men, women and children, mostly in execution style killings.

The UN's special envoy, Kofi Annan met Syria's president in Damascus and called for him to take "bold action" to end the violence; as Australia and several other governments responded to the Houla massacre by expelling Syrian diplomats.

So far the intensification of diplomatic pressure has not stopped the violence, with monitoring groups saying scores more people were killed in clashes between regime troops and rebels overnight.

Dr Hanna is a fellow at The Century Foundation and a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations. And he joined me earlier from New York.

Dr Hanna, Kofi Annan says Syria is now at a tipping point. Could this horrific massacre of children in Houla mark a turning point in the international community's response?

MICHAEL WAHID HANNA: Obviously it's created quite a unified response. One of the main points of focus now is in bringing Russia along in terms of bringing pressure to bear on the Syrian regime. And for some time this has been the focus of much of international diplomacy.

So I think all eyes still remain on the Russians, whether they're actually wedded to the Assad regime per se or whether there's some room for manoeuvre.

ELEANOR HALL: There does seem to have been somewhat of a shift from the Russians overnight. After the meeting with his UK counterpart the Russian foreign minister is saying that both sides had a hand in the deaths of innocent people at Houla.

And in a joint press conference with William Hague he said that the government bears the main responsibility for what's going on. Is that a sign that Russia may yet come on board with some form of international plan?

MICHAEL WAHID HANNA: Perhaps. I mean it is the shift in rhetoric. There's been some confused talk coming out of Moscow frankly, but the statements of Lavrov are the clearest indication yet that there might be some consternation with the Syrian regime. To some extent, with Russia backing the Annan plan and perhaps positioning itself as a facilitator of sorts, their credibility and their legitimacy is on the line.

And to the extent that they are seen as being a useful diplomatic player in this instance and able to push the Assad regime, you know, that enhances their role on the international stage. I think the key question for Russia is whether in fact being able to exercise veto power, in fact, more important to the Russians than any possible outcome in Syria.

ELEANOR HALL: And what's your sense of that?

MICHAEL WAHID HANNA: I think it's unclear, frankly. I do think Russia is doing serious long term damage to its position in the Middle East and they've adopted to date a sort of all-or-nothing approach to Syria.

If the Assad regime falls, Russia's influence in Syria will be destroyed. And they will have burnt a lot of bridges to other parties in the Middle East including Gulf parties.

ELEANOR HALL: Mr Annan told Bashar al-Assad during his meeting overnight that he wanted to see "bold action" from him. What is the likelihood that this meeting, the possible move of the Russians and the expulsion of Syrian diplomats around the world will force Bashar al-Assad to change his course?

MICHAEL WAHID HANNA: I think it's unlikely that Bashar Assad is going to change course short of a very serious shift in the Russian position. It will require complete and total isolation on the international stage. And even then I don't think that the Assad regime is going to see any of these diplomatic steps of sufficient threat to force their hand.

There is no real prospect of military intervention at the moment, despite what some would like to see happen. And so I still think that Russia plays a key role.

Its shift at this point in time would in fact indicate a level of international isolation that the Assad regime hasn't suffered to date and might be a key indicator to other regime insiders that their own self interest might be at stake and might be able to push from within the regime. And that's something we haven't seen as of yet.

ELEANOR HALL: When Australia's Foreign Minister announced the expulsion of Syrian diplomats he said that he wants to see the Annan peace plan work and that other options, like military intervention have considerable problems. What options, realistically, does the international community have if, as you suggest, this plan doesn't work?

MICHAEL WAHID HANNA: Frankly, the international community has not come up with any alternative. If the Annan plan fails, if diplomacy fails at this point, what Syria's looking at is protracted civil war.

It's fair to say that Syria is in a state of civil war already. But if this shot at diplomacy fails, it's clear that the Assad regime cannot quell the rebel movement and Syria might be in store for something that looks much more like a prolonged insurgency. And obviously that's not an outcome that anybody would like to see happen.

ELEANOR HALL: Well indeed. And the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is calling this 'rule by murder', I mean, very strong words, but do you think that there is a chance that the US will back this up with action?

MICHAEL WAHID HANNA: I think the options are quite limited and they've always been limited. Syria is not Libya. The international consensus on the issue is simply not there. There's no legal basis based on UN Security Council approval for any type of military intervention.

And if we take it down to the regional level, there isn't a capacity, whether it be on the Turkish side or the Arab League, to carry out any type of military intervention without broad Western backing.

ELEANOR HALL: The protracted civil war surely can't be something that the countries in the region or indeed the US would want to see. So if that is the alternative do you think that there could be Arab countries that could put pressure on the US?

MICHAEL WAHID HANNA: Well I mean, I don't think so. In the Arab world there's been quite a bit of hope that the United States would come with the magic bullet. And unfortunately that doesn't exist. I don't see that there's any type of consensus, say, on moving towards military intervention, despite the horror of this latest massacre in Syria.

Even in terms of what this regime has been capable of, this massacre stands out. It suggests a level of brazenness and suggests also not much care as to what the international response might be.

ELEANOR HALL: Dr Hanna thanks very much for joining us.

MICHAEL WAHID HANNA: Thank you.

ELEANOR HALL: That's Michael Wahid Hanna, a fellow at The Century Foundation and a member of the US Council on Foreign Relations. He was speaking to me earlier from New York.